FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Seems these "truth and justice" organisations want anything but:

Dear Steering Committee of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,

I hereby resign my membership with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and respectfully demand that all information on the public web site regarding my membership status be updated to reflect this or be removed. My reasons for this decision are that the organization does not live up to its charter regarding “evidence based scientific inquiry” or democratic principles.

I have repeatedly called on the steering committee to reign in abuses by the moderator (Victoria Ashley) on the discussion forum only to be ignored. The abuses have ranged from anti-scientific censorship tactics (i.e. moving unwanted arguments to the “Debunker” sub-forum) to the banning of members who actually call others to the mat to support their spurious claims. I have repeatedly asked the steering committee to make a simple statement to the effect that ALL evidence based arguments should be permitted on the “Scientific Analysis” sub-forum.

An earlier letter to the steering committee:

Dear Friends,

I have sent the moderators at the STJ911 forum the following questions and posted them repeatedly on the forum:

1. I believe the analysis by Kuttler (WTC1) is incorrect for a number of reasons. Is it OK to post on the Scientific Analysis forum demonstrating what is wrong with this analysis?

2. Is it OK to challenge each generally accepted theory or results which I believe may be incorrect on the Scientific Analysis forum?

3. If I think that gravitational collapse is the most likely cause of the destruction of WTC1 and 2, is it OK to argue that on the Scientific Analysis forum?

No answers have been forthcoming. Considering the hundreds of hours I have put into sincere work for our cause, I believe I at least deserve answers to these questions. Any support you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Let's not let science and truth die on our watch.

Best regards,

Gregory Urich

These calls for a commitment to the scientific process have fallen on deaf ears. In all fairness, Steven Jones has supported this, but he is not on the steering committee. Actually, one steering committee member did support this and was subsequently banned from the discussion forum after repeatedly arguing my point of view.

The organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, is supposed to be democratic in accord with the frequently asked questions on the web site which is as close to a charter as I can find for the group:

5. "Who is in charge now, and how does the group operate?"

An elected steering committee will be in charge of the website and its contents. Currently an ad hoc committee is in place. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership.

To my knowledge, the original ad-hoc committee has retained their positions for years, there have been no elections and not a single “important decision” has ever been submitted to the whole group.

Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed by the organization. In my opinion the group no longer functions in its search for truth, but has come down on the side of delusion and misinformation. I hope my resignation is a wakeup call to the steering committee and members. Justice can never be served if the truth is secondary to the movement.

Sincerely,

Gregory Urich

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133494

[Len Colby]

Unfortunately for many in the "'truth' movement" "freedom of speech" is only for those they agree with. Fetzer's endorsement of storming media outlets and "damning" engineers to hell that don't back his POV and expulsion of Steve Jones are cases in point

[Evan Burton]

See this post.

[Len Colby]

Since 2005 William Rodriguez has told whoever would listen that he brought his lawsuit and became involved in the “‘truth’ movement” because “the testimony I gave the [9/11] commission behind closed doors last year was omitted from the final report.” He claimed his “statements…directly contradict the government story” (1) Remember that old adage about having to be careful about what you wish for? In Rodriguez’s case that should be amended to “be careful about what you PRETEND to wish for because you just might get it”. The commission released the hand written notes of James Miller and George Delgrosso the investigators who interviewed him on June 9, 2004 and Miller’s typed up summary. They were obtained and put online by debunker Mike Williams (2). Not only has Rodriguez not challenged their authenticity but he released his copies and they match and the blogger who posted them claims they “vindicate” the 9/11 hero (3). However it is further evidence he was not being truthful because he told the comission nothing that “directly contradict[ed] the government story”.

According to the typed summary "Rodriguez said…he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake."

So he indicated “the first explosion” happened “when the plane struck the North Tower”. Let’s not forget that there no record of him claiming before May 2005 that there was a pre-impact explosion from below. There wasn’t even any mention of it in his October 2004 RICO complaint or his or his lawyer’s interviews in that and the following month (4).

There are other contradictions; neither commission interviewer noted him making any comments about the damaged caused by or intensity of the first blast however the second one “rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse” (3a summary) “Bld shakes false ceiling collapse” (3a notes) “large explosion ceiling collapsed walls cracked” (3b). In latter retellings however the first explosion was the more powerful one which cracked the walls and brought down the ceiling. Just under a year later on May 25, 2005 he told the American Free Press the 2nd explosion shook the building and cracked the walls but after the first “The building shook, the ceiling fell, and some of the sprinklers began spraying.” (4) In June 2006 he told Alex Jones:

“As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top" (4)

In an interview with the makers of Loose Change he stated more explicitly a version contradicting his commission testimony. The first explosion was now far more powerful than the first:

“All of a sudden we hear BOOM! (claps hands together at waist level loudly) and I said to myself ‘Oh my God! I think it was a generator’ and I was going to verbalize it and when I finish saying that in my mind I hear poooh (claps hands less loudly than before over head) right on top pretty far away…” (4)

In several of his subsequent retellings Rodriguez mentioned stopping on the 33rd floor were his company had an office after leaving the firemen behind on the 27th floor and hearing strange inexplicable noises on the 34th floor. In at least one of those accounts he mentioned saving a woman who had passed out. I pointed out various inconsistencies and other problems with the different versions in my paper (4). Though he discussed going from the 27th floor to the 39th before turning back and meeting PA police officer he knew on the 36th he seems not to have mentioned anything about the 33rd or 34th floors to the commission’s investigators (3 a & .

1] http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lies_under.html

2] No relation to this forum’s Mike Williams - http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:NYC_Bo...m_Rodriguez.pdf - In the report Miller is described as a “Professional Staff Member” and Delgrosso as an “Investigator” [ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf pgs xiii – xiv, PDF pgs 13 – 14] but for simplicity’s sake I describe them both as investigators.

3] http://911blogger.com/node/19439 Rodriguez used to post on this blog and sent his copies to “Reprehensor” the administrator

a) Miller’s notes and summary - http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez.pdf

Delgrosso notes - http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez-2.pdf

4] See my paper on pg 1 for links to his other subsequent statements

Edited February 25, 2009 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Peter:

What exactly did Len say / quote that was wrong?

Thanks.

[Len Colby]

Peter:

What exactly did Len say / quote that was wrong?

Thanks.

I doubt he would even bother to answer, any info that contradicts his pre-conceived notions is rejected out of hand that which reconfirms them is accepted uncritically.

“Reprehensor” ‘debunked’ a strawman, no one disputes that Rodriguez has said since 9/11 he heard 2 or more explosions. What has been inconsistent are his accounts of their order, direction and intensity. According to the notes and summary whose accuracy he has not disputed he said 1) the 1st explosion was caused by the impact of the plane 2) the 2nd explosion was more powerful and brought down the ceiling, he contradicted this in later retellings. There is no record* of him saying anything about an explosion from below preceding the crash, stopping on the 33rd floor after the explosions, saving a woman there or hearing strange noises on the 34th floor, these were elements of his post 2004 accounts.

* No record in the commision’s notes nor any of the various 2001 – 2004 interviews in English and Spanish I was able to find.

[Charles Drago]

Peter,

Here's an easy one: How about Big Tobacco's conspiracy to hide the health risks associated with nicotine consumption -- at an estimated cost of 100 million lives through this century?

This one surely can be acknowledged by all but those who, for any number of reasons, feel a kinship with the conspirators.

Giving new definition to the term "smoking gun," I should say.

CD

[Myra Bronstein]

Peter,

Here's an easy one: How about Big Tobacco's conspiracy to hide the health risks associated with nicotine consumption -- at an estimated cost of 100 million lives through this century?

This one surely can be acknowledged by all but those who, for any number of reasons, feel a kinship with the conspirators.

Giving new definition to the term "smoking gun," I should say.

CD

By those who feel a kinship or have a literal kinship.

Agreed Len? You son of a (smoking) gun.

Myra

[Len Colby]

Can any of those defending Rodriguez

1) show how his statement to the commission contradicted "the official story" as he claimed?

2) explain the discrepancies I pointed out?

3) explain why he made no mention of a pre-impact explosion until nearly 4 years after the fact?

[Len Colby]

AE911T is a logical fallacy it is an appeal to false authority. True it has about 600 architects and engineers, out of about 1 million in the US but chemical, HVAC and electrical etc engineers are NOT especially qualified neither are civil engineers if their area of expertise is something like road construction. Mechanical/materials engineers are qualified if their area of expertise includes construction materials/methods. Fire engineers can also add valuable insights.

The most applicable experts are structural engineers specifically those who design multistory steel frame buildings and especially those who design skyscrapers. As far as I know no members of Gage’s group fall in the latter category. As far as can be determined by Internet searches the few structural engineers who are members either got the applicable license decades ago but worked as architects and/or only worked on 1 – 3 story buildings like school buildings and fast food joints, these probably not coincidentally are the types of buildings Richard Gage designed (mostly one, a single three and a few two story structures).

Another problem with AE911T is that based on their comments few if any of them have read the NIST reports. Troy from WV a debunking video prankster called several members of the group and they admitted to having not read the 7 WTC report. Most make comments about having reached their conclusions by watched videos or comment on non-engineering issues, some oddly debunk the 2002 SEAofNY/ASCE/FEMA report whose known deficiencies led to the more authoritative and exhaustive NIST reports.

On the other hand several fire and structural engineers with such expertise who obviously read the reports have voiced their disagreement with the controlled demolition theories. Recently the association of these experts, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, issued a report in which they raise some technical points about particular details (but not the conclusions of NIST’s draft 7 WTC report. The authors declared:

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/Work...DraftReport.pdf

The authors of the report, David Scott Simon Lay and Daniel O'Connor, are highly qualified. Scott is Chairman of the CTBUH 2006 – 9, a structural engineer, principle of ARUP’s New York office, and a designer of tall buildings since 1981 including:

Sir Norman Foster’s Hongkong Bank

the Freedom Tower

the 300m Cheung Kong Center

the 425m Landmark Tower in Hong Kong;

the Orca tower in Warsaw, Poland;

the Northeast Asia Tower in Songdo, Korea

He witnessed the 9/11 attacks and “was a team leader working with contractors on the search, recovery and clean-up of the World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11 attack and was extensively involved in the subsequent industry review of building design and standards. He has authored papers on seismic design, wind engineering, the performance of tall buildings in fire, composite structures and the design of long-span roofs” Along with two other engineers from ARUP, (one of the worlds leading engineering consulting firms, he authored the paper “Fire Induced Progressive Collapse”

http://www.arup.com/arup/newsitem.cfm?pageid=7881

http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf

Lay and O’Connor areighly qualified fire engineers and co-chairs of CTBUH’s Fire and Satey Working group

In response to a truther Scott said

The ae911truth movement is not interested in truth. It presents one side of the argument and ignores all the facts that indicate that they may be wrong.

[…]

As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse.

[…]

Much of the evidence is circumstantial and is presented in a highly biased and emotive way. I have taken several of my family members through the ae911truth presentation and videos when they first came out and there was nothing that I saw, that could not be explained as a reasonable part of a collapse. Much of this information can be extracted from the NIST reports or from various contradictory web-sites..

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...7314&page=2 – The entire thread starting from page 1 is of interest

Scott, Lay and O’Conner were not the only ones to say such things. Leslie R Robertson was the structural engineer who designed the WTC as well as many other tall buildings, his firm was retained by the PANYNJ after the 1993 bombing to repair, renovate and update the building and his wife the firms #2 engineer participated in the ASCE/FEMA and NIST investigations of the collapses. He said :

I support the general conclusions of the NIST report. It was prepared, by the way, not just by NIST, but by a series of engineering firms around the country who provided advice and assistance to NIST in their investigations

.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...nTranscript.pdf

Zdenenk Bazandt is considered one the world’s leading structural engineers and has advanced degrees in mechanical engineering and physics. He is a professor of structural engineering at Northwestern University (one of the top engineering schools in the US. He has written 6 books and close to 500 scholarly articles he has written more peer reviewed papers (published in established journals) about the WTC collapses than anyone else. The most recent of those papers was published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and ASCE publication. His co-authors included Dr. Frank Greening a chemical physicist, engineering consultant and nuclear industry whistleblower who had previously believed the towers were demolished, he was a founding member of the Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11 (SPINE). They wrote:

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.

Thomas W. Eagar is not a structural engineer but a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems a MIT. Previously employed by Bethlehem Steel he is one of the worlds leading metallurgists. In December 2001 he wrote a paper about the collapses and concluded:

...the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

Links to numerous other papers and articles by highly qualified structural engineers and other scientists can be found here.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfem...turalengineerin

[Pamela Brown]

You may be mixing apples and oranges when you talk about 'all tall buildings' in the same category as WTF1/2. They were built in a manner different from most skyscrapers, in that their structure was based on girders in the center of each building and on load-bearing walls, leaving the rest of each floor basically open. Typical skyscrapers have steel girders at regular intervals throughout the building. Any qualified architect or engineer should specify this prior to making a statement regarding why they fell as they did.

In WTC1 the plane sheared the elevator shafts in the center of the floors it hit. This made it impossible for anyone in the floors above to descend to safety, perhaps destabilizing the building. In each building, slicing through the load-bearing walls may have created a structural trauma that contributed to the fact that they fell and the manner in which they pancaked.

Also, ironically, with WT1, the lower floors may not have been completely stabilized after the first attack in '93. The slurry wall was almost breached also at that time.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In Peters Thermite thread, the question of Flight 93 being shot down was posed. if anyone has any new information could they post it here?

[Jack White]

You may be mixing apples and oranges when you talk about 'all tall buildings' in the same category as WTF1/2. They were built in a manner different from most skyscrapers, in that their structure was based on girders in the center of each building and on load-bearing walls, leaving the rest of each floor basically open. Typical skyscrapers have steel girders at regular intervals throughout the building. Any qualified architect or engineer should specify this prior to making a statement regarding why they fell as they did.

In WTC1 the plane sheared the elevator shafts in the center of the floors it hit. This made it impossible for anyone in the floors above to descend to safety, perhaps destabilizing the building. In each building, slicing through the load-bearing walls may have created a structural trauma that contributed to the fact that they fell and the manner in which they pancaked.

Also, ironically, with WT1, the lower floors may not have been completely stabilized after the first attack in '93. The slurry wall was almost breached also at that time.

Pamela's conjectures are without any foundation whatsoever.

...sheared the elevator shafts? nonsense

...slicing through load bearing walls? nonsense

...pancaked floors? nonsense.

...slurry wall breached in '93? nonsense

Where does such disinformation originate?

Jack

[Jack White]

You may be mixing apples and oranges when you talk about 'all tall buildings' in the same category as WTF1/2. They were built in a manner different from most skyscrapers, in that their structure was based on girders in the center of each building and on load-bearing walls, leaving the rest of each floor basically open. Typical skyscrapers have steel girders at regular intervals throughout the building. Any qualified architect or engineer should specify this prior to making a statement regarding why they fell as they did.

In WTC1 the plane sheared the elevator shafts in the center of the floors it hit. This made it impossible for anyone in the floors above to descend to safety, perhaps destabilizing the building. In each building, slicing through the load-bearing walls may have created a structural trauma that contributed to the fact that they fell and the manner in which they pancaked.

Also, ironically, with WT1, the lower floors may not have been completely stabilized after the first attack in '93. The slurry wall was almost breached also at that time.

Pamela's conjectures are without any foundation whatsoever.

...sheared the elevator shafts? nonsense

...slicing through load bearing walls? nonsense

...pancaked floors? nonsense.

...slurry wall breached in '93? nonsense

Where does such disinformation originate?

Jack

Anyone with any knowledge of the WTC SLURRY WALL knows that the reason

for the wall WAS TO KEEP THE HUDSON RIVER WATER OUT OF THE BASEMENT

AND SUBWAY! It is nonsense to say the wall was breached.

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is a description of the WTC SLURRY WALL construction. Both towers collapsed into

them and did not breach them.

........

The WTC complex consisted of seven buildings on a 16-acre site in lower Manhattan. The deep basement (bathtub) portion of the site covers a four-city block (980 foot) by two-city block (520 foot) area some 200 feet from the east shore of the Hudson River (Figure 1). The deep basement occupies only about 70 percent of the 16-acre WTC site and is just west of the place where the Dutch landed in 1614. The size and depth of the deep basement and the alignment of the perimeter wall were dictated by several requirements: the construction of a new interstate commuter railroad (PATH) station parallel to the Greenwich Street east wall; support for an operating New York City subway tunnel located just outside the east wall; protection of the entry points of two 100-year old, 17-foot diameter PATH tunnels on the east and west; and the foundation of the twin towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) on bedrock within the excavation (Figure 2).

The geology of the WTC site varies from east to west. On the east (Greenwich Street), 15 to 30 feet of fill cover as much as 20 feet of glacial outwash sand and silt, below which are 5 to 20 feet of glacial till/decomposed rock. The Manhattan schist bedrock is found at depths of 65 to 80 feet. A knoll of quartzite rock intrudes into the site at the southeast corner. On the west (West Street), the fill is 20 to 35 feet thick and is underlain by 10 to 30 feet of soft organic marine clay (river mud). Below the river mud is a 20-foot thick layer of glacial outwash sand and silt and 5 to 20 feet of glacial till/decomposed rock. Bedrock is found at depths of 55 to 75 feet. Groundwater levels were within several feet of ground surface. The fills were placed into the river during various periods of development and consisted of excavation spoil, demolition debris, marine construction, abandoned vessels, lost cargo, and garbage. A maze of utilities and abandoned structures further complicated the ground conditions.

Two short segments of the West Street wall projected 65 and 90 feet to the west to permit the slurry wall to cross over the PATH tunnels where the tunnel invert was buried in rock; the top half was covered with soil. At that location, the slurry wall concrete could be cast against the top of the cast iron tunnel rings and socketed into rock on both sides of the tunnel, creating a watertight seal at the crossing (Figure 3).

The basement was bounded by a 3,500-foot long, 3-foot thick slurry wall (perimeter wall) constructed from grade and socketed into rock located at depths of as much as 80 feet. In the 1950s, continuous underground walls were constructed using bentonite slurry as a temporary support for slot excavations in difficult soil conditions. Bentonite slurry is only slightly heavier than water. Early on, the Port Authority Engineering Department recognized that this technology would be suitable for construction of a safe, economical deep basement in extremely difficult ground conditions.

The slots at the WTC were eventually filled with reinforcing steel cages that were assembled on site; each cage weighed as much as 22 tons. The cages were concreted, using Tremie methods, to form 158 individual panels. Special jointing details were used to ensure watertight connections of the individual panels that were used to form the perimeter. Each panel was approximately 22 feet long. The slurry wall was installed in a 12-month period ending in 1968.

The next phase of construction required careful staging of the excavation and temporary support of the PATH tubes that traversed the site. To provide lateral support of the wall as the excavation proceeded downward, 1,500 high-strength tendon tieback anchors were installed. Four to six tiers of tieback anchors were installed through sleeves (“trumpets”) in the slurry wall, drilled through the soil using steel pipe casing, and then drilled 30 to 35 feet into bedrock. Each anchor was grouted in place, tested, and locked off at 50 percent to 100 percent of the design load. Tieback anchor capacities varied from 100 to 300 tons. About 55 additional anchors were installed to replace anchors that were obstructed during drilling, damaged during installation, or did not reach design capacity during testing.

More than a million cubic yards of excavation spoil was carted to a disposal area across West Street and eventually incorporated into the landfill for Battery Park City. The southernmost building of the World Financial Center is located on that portion of the landfill (Figure 4). The excavation phase required a year. Once the permanent basement floors were capable of supporting the walls, the tieback anchors were detensioned and the sleeves sealed.

The scale of the WTC project was unprecedented. This was only the third time slurry walls were used in the United States and one of the earliest uses of a large number of tieback anchors to such high capacities. The WTC basement was the most challenging foundation construction in New York up to that time and, for that matter, up to the present (Figure 5). The Port Authority exhibited great courage and foresight when it designed and oversaw the construction of the basement structure.